Tucker on X: The Kyle Rittenhouse Interview


We haven’t done one of these ‘Tucker on X’ pieces for a while, partially because we haven’t had the time. Indeed, apparently, he has rebranded it as ‘The Tucker Carlson Encounter’ when we weren’t looking. Still, we definitely wanted to tune in to see what Kyle Rittenhouse had to say. So, without further ado, here’s that interview:

We thought the interview was okay. Early on they referenced a different interview Rittenhouse did where, in Carlson’s eyes, the host seemed to want Rittenhouse to apologize for defending himself. They don’t name the interviewer, but we are willing to bet it was Rittenhouse’s interview with this British antigun toolbag:

We thought Rittenhouse did okay in that interview. We think asking how Rittenhouse felt about killing two people actually was reasonable, and Rittenhouse came off as too defensive, but overall, Piers Morgan’s hostility to the right to self-defense was self-evident. Honestly, we hate to give pointers to gun grabbers, but they would be so much more persuasive if they 1) still believed in the right to defend yourself, and 2) didn’t also hate the First Amendment. Seriously, we haven’t met a gun grabber yet who truly believed in free speech and the right of self-defense.

And to give pointers to the pro-gun side, this is what you say to someone who says that a 17-year-old like Rittenhouse should not be able to have a gun: The militias that helped free this country from the British in the Revolutionary War were documented as containing teenagers as young as fourteen. So, it is partly thanks to a bunch of teenagers that people like Piers Morgan don’t get a say in our gun laws.

So, that is what Rittenhouse should have said, but we’re willing to cut him some slack because, and we can’t emphasize this enough, he’s only twenty years old and, really, he didn’t ask for any of this.


Returning to the Carlson interview, that was naturally a much friendlier exchange, although Carlson seemed more interested in denouncing the larger failings in our society, than talking about the ins and outs of the case.

For instance, one question we have been dying to hear the answer to is this. Most people who know anything about self-defense with firearms knows that you should usually aim for center mass—essentially the chest. You never shoot at their hands or even head because that part moves more often and more erratically: You’re more likely to miss. So, when Rittenhouse shot Gaige Grosskreutz in the arm, was he trying to shoot his chest and missed? Or did he just decide to try to shoot him in the arm and succeeded? 

But Carlson wasn’t very interested in that kind of information, which is a shame.

We think the most interesting news to come out of this interview was that, according to Rittenhouse, the NRA did not help him but the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) did. We have some sympathy for the NRA’s position: They seem to be more about the right to own a gun, and to the extent that they support the right of self-defense, they don’t want to get into the weeds of a specific case. 

But we still think NAGR has the right position in this case. Maybe if the facts were murkier, we would see the argument for staying out of it, but the majority of the facts really are beyond dispute and, indeed, caught on video. Once we were able to see those videos, we began to think he was definitely innocent and we feel justice was done in Wisconsin.

Or, at least, justice has been done so far. Rittenhouse is selling a book and while he protests it isn’t to make money, it probably is. But the kid has to deal with a lot of legal bills and the general way that leftists are attempting to ruin his life because he committed the ‘sin’ of refusing to be murdered. Consider for a moment where his income might be if he hadn’t been attacked by the pedophile, Joseph Rosenbaum, setting off a cascade of events that left two people dead and one injured. So, we sympathize with Rittenhouse’s plight and we don’t mind sharing the post where he sells his book:

Or if you prefer to give to his legal defense, you can do that, too:

As for Carlson, we haven’t talked about any potential conflict he might have with Fox News for a while. But we will note that Carlson seems to have escalated things by starting a new streaming service:

Up until now, Carlson was doing these interviews and segments, and seemingly getting no income from it, but still doing basically the same kinds of things he used to do on his old show on Fox News. Maybe he got some ad revenue sharing from Twitter/X but that’s the only money we think he had coming in. Now he is streaming, for pay. This author is not sure he is willing to pony up for the service, but that makes Carlson look much more like competition for Fox News. We have to assume he has talked to a lawyer about it and decided either 1) nothing in any contract stops him from doing this or 2) Fox News won’t dare to enforce the contract. At this point, we think the only way he could be more provocative of Fox News is if he started a new show on Newsmax or another rightwing competitor. But from what Carlson has said in the past, he doesn’t want to do that. He wants to be essentially his own boss, from now on.

Still, as of this writing we haven’t heard of Fox News even reacting to all of this. We would say that if they don’t do something by the end of the year, they aren’t likely to do anything at all in response to this provocation.

In any case, reactions were swift about the episode:

We appreciate Rittenhouse’s humility in saying he is not a hero, but he kind of was. Even if you don’t think self-defense is itself heroic, he could have stayed home. He could have done no more than be ready to defend his home and family. Instead, he went out in an effort to protect his community, knowing his life might end up being in danger. I doubt that he wanted things to go the way it did, and we believe he made a tactical error letting himself get separated from his group, but he showed courage in even leaving his front door. For that, he is rightly considered heroic.

*Raises hand* We know! We know! Rittenhouse was defending someone else’s property.

Jokes aside, there isn’t much of a difference, but to be fair, leftists hate them, too.

We have a feeling the NRA is going to get serious blowback over this.

It was kind of ridiculous when Rittenhouse said that they would feel differently if he was Israeli. Respectfully, the leftist media hates Israel almost as much as Rittenhouse.

Also, the Target Douche had to weigh in:

Which is a silly criticism. This was not repetitive of anything we are aware of, and if he is implying that Rittenhouse isn’t telling the truth, a jury of his peers didn’t agree. Or, he might just have watched the videos to figure it out.

It’s always hard to take people like this seriously, when they don’t know the basic facts. This guy apparently doesn’t know Rittenhouse killed two people. If he did, he would probably have said he ‘murdered’ two people, at a minimum, because either he doesn’t believe in self-defense, doesn’t recognize it when he sees it, or, more likely, never even looked at the evidence.

We can’t even with these people. So, let’s have a Tweet that is on the side of righteousness to close this out as a palate cleanser.

Snort. Or the agents working the Epstein case, apparently.


Editor’s Note: Do you enjoy Twitchy’s conservative reporting taking on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth. Join Twitchy VIP and use the promo code SAVEAMERICA to get 40% off your VIP membership!

Las Vegas News Magazine

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Accept Read More